U.S. or them
Here's an interesting article on Bush's upcoming visit to China and the economic and military issues underlying said visit. Namely, China's getting stronger on these two fronts and is making the U.S. and other countries scared. What has the U.S. been doing for the past +100 years (and especially in the past 60)? Funny how when the U.S. invades two countries under shaky pretenses the rest of the world is told to fall in line or suck it up, then the U.S.' (arguably) biggest political and economic rival aims to make a big step forward and everyone clutches their U.S. flag that much more tightly. The hate that hate produced...
posted by Chimaobi Amutah @ 12:28 AM
5 Comments:
hah, you write as if you're surprised by all this. as if our country's actions make no sense.
it's perfectly logical. we believe that we hold special privileges that other countries shouldn't. so what's your beef?
we watch out for our special interest. and china's a communist nation.
I understand all of this an I'm not suprised by it. You'll notice that I point to the article's topic in a sort of funny, "the nerve of the U.S."-type way. Sadly, very few things suprise me about the elitism and global oppression practiced by the U.S.
Why is China spending so much money on its military? Chinese leaders in speeches go to great lengths to commit the historical fallacy that China "has always been a peaceful nation" and has never been the aggressor. Who does China have to fear that they are taking the world's largest army and world's largest air force and putting tens of billions of dollars into it, when they could be developing the West (of China), alleviating poverty, fighting disease, or even just embezzling it? On the other hand, US military spending was brought on by the exigencies of WWII, and have been maintained at such a high level because the US military is the most powerful force ever unleashed . . . for peace. The stability and security that the US military provides to all the world (not just the US, but specifically to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all of the other countries to which US peacekeepers have been deployed, and to the rest of the world) is unmatched. We are the only nation who's military is so effective without acting, producing peace without firing a shot.
However, the Chinese military trains daily for an invasion of Taiwan --- an invasion that US military presence used to be able to repel without trouble. It is clear that this will no longer be the case for very much longer, unless the US strengthens its naval presence in the Taiwan straits. There is no question (currently, at least) that in a conflict of total war the US would prevail over China, but that scenario is so unthinkable that the relevant question comes what would happen in a limited conflict, such as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The US needs to expand our military presence across the Taiwan straits --- not to actually fight a war, but specifically so no war will be fought. We need to use our military to maintain parity and preserve peace. Without a strong military counterpoint to check it, the deep-rooted Chinese desire to take back from Taiwan could lead to war. This desire is historical, rooted in opposition to Japanese colonialism, but has become a potent force because the Chinese Communist party's tenuous hold on power has been continually reinforced by appealing to anti-Japanese nationalism and notions of the importance of territorial integrity. I bear zero animosity towards China, but I'm very concerned with what their government is trying to do, and how the ultra-nationalism they've managed to instill might boil over. Their grievance is not with the US, but indirectly to Japan, by redirecting anger towards a corrupt Chinese government towards an external source.
Unlike a possible invasion of Taiwan, the recent US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not unprovoked, were not for territorial expansion, and were not against the wishes or interest of the brave people of those countries. Both recent US invasions resulted in the liberation of millions of people from brutal dictatorships that posed a direct threat not only to the US but to the rest of the world. For what it's worth, they were also explicitly sanctioned by UN resolutions.
By contrast, a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan could only be justified on the shakiest of historical grounds, as Taiwan poses no military threat to China or anyone else, the Taiwanese government is not a brutal dictatorship, and such an invasion would not be sanctioned by the international community. In case you didn't realize, the only countries that really complained about the US invasion of Iraq were France and Germany --- France because they were interested in appeasement and surrender, and have a historical precedent of automatically opposing anything proposed by the US, and Germany because in the wake of American reconstruction of Germany following WWII the national culture in Germany has become pacifist. Most countries in the world contributed troops and support to both invasions, which have only been spun as "unilateral" by enemies of US. If anyone thinks even for a moment that Russia and China (who have far more serious problems with radical Islamic terrorism than the US) were not privately strongly in favor of the invasion of Iraq, you're living in a different world.
first poster again
hahaha, i thought jersey was bad but elephant's worse.
china's military spending is completely logical too. they've got to protect their national interests, which will also be about securing oil and natural resources. they've seen the great success the US has achieved by securing stable supplies for economic growth.
they've also painted themselves into a tough corner by basing part of their legitimacy on the taiwan issue. for them to have the popular support of their ppl, they've gotta back it up.
and let's be real here, the US doesn't care about taiwanese democracy. it's just a pawn, and we use it as a thorn in the side of China.
To Elephant: I've had a long day and so this will be brief and to the point.
The U.S. military's purpose is not peace. It is to protect U.S. interests wherever they lie and they will use peace to protect it or they will bomb a village full of crippled women and children to protect it. It matters not to them. Our military is responsible for more human deaths than any other military in human history and circumventing democracy, justice, and international law to stage coups and spread capitalism is what they do. And they do it quite well, by golly.
What is the U.S. interest in Taiwan? Is it strategic miltaristically, economically, or in another way? I'm really unsure of this so I'm asking for anyone who knows more to inform me.
What did Afghanistan or Iraq ever do to the U.S.? The charge is that the Afghanistan government (made up of the Taliban) was harboring terrorists, most specifically Osama Bin Laden. I ask you this: WHERE IS HE! The most powerful, technologically advanced, and well-funded military in the world was not able to find this one guy in what may have been the most aggressive, focused, and politically charged international manhunt in history? This is besides the fact that I don't even think Bin Laden was behind the attacks (www.ThePowerHour.Com). The main Iraq charge was that they were developing weapons of mass destruction and they were a threat to international security (in addition to suppressing the political voice of its people supposedly being in cahoots with Al-Queda). No such weapons have been found after over two and a half years of scouring the nation. Also, what U.N. resolutions authorized U.S. air strikes on Baghdad or ground invasion of Iraq under Bush? None. The War in Iraq was the brainchild of Cheney, Rumsfield, and Bush Sr. (the three people who REALLY run the U.S....possibly along with Rove) and their nation-rebuilding and military arm-producing comrades: not the U.N. Security Council.
The same thing you say about Taiwan not being a threat AT ALL to the huge monstrosity that is China can be said for Iraq and Afghanistan (combined and squared, thank you) not being a threat AT ALL to the huge monstrosity that is the U.S. Only France and Germany (or at least their governments...there was significant opposition among the populatoins of these nations) came out against the Bush doctrine because they had the gall to economically and politically. Also, non-U.S. militaristic support in Iraq is constantly waning (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm). Political parties in certain countries are actually campaigning on promises to remove their (few) troops from the rocket propelled grenades and walking civilian bombs of Iraq created by U.S. imperialism.
Post a Comment
<< Home